Are Some Armies Being Robbed or Artificially Rewarded?

[SRW1962]

I have been playing LOTS of games as Mid-Republican Roman vs Carthaginians against a friend of mine as a prelude to a campaign on the Punic Wars. The problem we have found is that it seems as Carthaginians he is severely hampered if not being robbed against the Romans due to the quality of his troops. Although the qulaity in terms morale etc. is correct when compared to the TT version the problem is that in the TT version the carthaginian units would be much larger thus making them less brittle, so what they lacked in quality they had in numbers within their units. The Romans are largely unaffected as they would really have small units anyway for the most part in the TT rules. It seems to us that spearmen and barbarian types are penalised by making them have smaller units or especially less deep formations that can keep adding men into the melee from the rear as they get killed, which makes it harder for the Romans to win as they are usually fighting a unit twice the size but on the same frontage. In something like a couple of dozen games he has won twice, but only because he had 50% more points and even then dues to silly roman anarchy charges into disordering terrain or when Roman MF charged out of favourable terrain into carthaginian cavalry in the open.

To me it seems that some troops are being robbed by having smaller formations and others are being rewarded. From the troops being robbed category I would say all spear units, all barbarian types and MF that could be in larger formations. Of the troops being rewarded I would say Pikes are gettting away with murder (Swiss) as they rush around with none of the constraints of a large unit but with all the lethality of Jedi knights with a blood lust. Troops not affected are cavalry, legionary types and any type that would only be in a small unit in the TT rules.

Is there any way that the unit sizes that are allowable or cumpulsory n the TT rules good be factored into the equation (as in depth factors like pikes get) or some units being forced to join together to make larger formations (pikes) to constrain their artificial maneouvre benefits. Its a shame as we now believe that this is going to be the downfall of the system in the long run, and it is a very good system by and large.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this or have had similar experiences

[Blathergut]

In the end, FoG PC is not FoG TT.

The most obvious difference is the BG sizes since FoG PC has only individual units. In truth, it plays more like single bases than BGs. I don't see this ever changing. The answer may be to give some armies a few extra points (maybe 50) when you play if you have found them to be affected strongly in some way.

I have found that taking poor troops and keeping them as a secondary line in support, helps greatly (and drastically increases army size which means the good stuff can find longer and die more before the army shatters).

Also, I have been running only one troop CinC...which also gives many more troops. (This may change a bit with the new double move rules coming.)

Like the SoA armies, you can hit the enemy good stuff and die, but if you have a second wave then the good stuff tends to be so chewed up you finally have a chance at taking it out.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, historcially I dont believe the Carthos had either the quality or the #'s when facing Rome

What they had was a more flexible army in terms of combined arms and , well, one superior tactical leader....

[SRW1962]

In the end, FoG PC is not FoG TT.

The most obvious difference is the BG sizes since FoG PC has only individual units. In truth, it plays more like single bases than BGs. I don't see this ever changing. The answer may be to give some armies a few extra points (maybe 50) when you play if you have found them to be affected strongly in some way.

I have found that taking poor troops and keeping them as a secondary line in support, helps greatly (and drastically increases army size which means the good stuff can find longer and die more before the army shatters).

Also, I have been running only one troop CinC...which also gives many more troops. (This may change a bit with the new double move rules coming.)

Like the SoA armies, you can hit the enemy good stuff and die, but if you have a second wave then the good stuff tends to be so chewed up you finally have a chance at taking it out.

Very true, it isn't the same as the TT game, in some ways its better, in some ways it isn't.

Reserve lines are something that he has used and they do help, except that as Roman I do use the same tactic (although Roman reserves are better than the front line) so this doesn't help him. He has outflanked me constantly and yet as soon as his main battle line is contacted, his army is as good as destroyed. If he doesn't commit his battleline his cavalry are destroyed piecemeal. With 50% more points he still has not yet found a winning strategy, and its not that he is actually doing anything wrong, he forms up well, attacks well and I am simply deploying and attacking as the Romans would do historically. It does seem wrong that he has to have so many more men and yet still lose. I haven't tried using the Carthaginians myself as its his favourite army but I don't think I wopuld truly do much better to be honest.

It's a shame as I think you are right in that in won't ever change.

[SRW1962]

Hmm, historcially I dont believe the Carthos had either the quality or the #'s when facing Rome

What they had was a more flexible army in terms of combined arms and , well, one superior tactical leader....

Exactly!

This is my point. Even with 50% more points and that means a great deal more men he has not been able to get fair chance at winning.

The extra numbers I was referring to are within individual BG's not in overall numbers of men, for instance in the TT game he may have 8 elements in a BG of African Spearmen as opposed to 4 in my Roman Hastati, same frontage but twice the depth and twice the elements which give it more staying power, the same goes for the Spanish and Gauls in the army. Quality vs quantity sort of evens itself out really, add the cavalry and the better leadership and it makes for a very tight game which is exactly what we are not getting from the PC version.

[TheGrayMouser]

I guess the key is timing.. The carthos( In Italy) have 8 superior cavalry and 4-6 light cavalry., coupled with an elephant you have a formidible flank/strike force
You can still afford to by all 9 superior spears and about 16 medium impact foot...

Even those spear armed cavalry can damage legions (except triari)
I cant see the roman flank forces defending against such a powerful cavalry force the carthos can yield9if deployed en masse) so he should be able to get his cavalry into a very compromising position...

No need to rush in w your spear infanty until the right moment , and then dont initaite the impact let him come(or anrachy into you)

I think the Carthos have a pretty tough army, they will only suffer when facing a more anachronistic foe like Seluecids/late romans or whatnot as they will be equal in #'s in cavalry and be less potent than Lancers and cats

[SRW1962]

I guess the key is timing.. The carthos( In Italy) have 8 superior cavalry and 4-6 light cavalry., coupled with an elephant you have a formidible flank/strike force
You can still afford to by all 9 superior spears and about 16 medium impact foot...

Even those spear armed cavalry can damage legions (except triari)
I cant see the roman flank forces defending against such a powerful cavalry force the carthos can yield9if deployed en masse) so he should be able to get his cavalry into a very compromising position...

No need to rush in w your spear infanty until the right moment , and then dont initaite the impact let him come(or anrachy into you)

I think the Carthos have a pretty tough army, they will only suffer when facing a more anachronistic foe like Seluecids/late romans or whatnot as they will be equal in #'s in cavalry and be less potent than Lancers and cats

My god you are fast at typing! You typed all that in just 2 minutes!

I agree timing is crucial, he is certainly no fool and been my wargaming buddy for about 30 years now and in all that time we have battled away as Carthaginians vs Romans with all manner of popular rules systems, which is why this is becoming a bit of a bugbear. More with me than him as he in fairness takes the defeats with good grace, and I cannot see what he is doing wrong in most games as he gets around my flanks, kills me with his elephants and skirmishes well. its just the brittle nature of the main foot troops he has in the army.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, maybe its a hang up with preconceptions then? What I mean is if he is so used to utilizing carthos from other systems it might actually make it harder to utilize them in the way the PC game mechaincs treat them....
Or you might just be really really good as the Romans

I dont know if the FOG system was meant to have every army having the same chance to win against another (all other things being equal) Some armies just have weaknesses against other line ups...
The Mid Republicans alway have a difficult time against armies that have a lot of lancers and no heavy infantry target to sink there teath onto... Perg's, Parthians, likly the Bosphorans... Impact foot dont do well against lancers and cant go after them either, and you are limited to the triari you can field and they cant be every where!

[SRW1962]

I simply deploy and use the romans as near as I can that makes them look historical and play historical within the framework of the rules.

As for him, he knows his carthaginians and does likewise, but it seems he couldn't get a win even if it was buy one get one free, and I will reiterate the point that he is no fool and plays a good game usually.

I have arranged to try out the carthaginians but really don't fancy my chances, but either way I will report back the results.

I do agree that some armies probably wouldn't win no matter what against some armies, but when you have two armies such as these who battled for years before the conclusion it really does seem to me that something is slightly off, and all I can think of is the BG sizes, and again he has at times used up to 50% more points than me being a 600 pt vs 400 pt game.

As for Romans vs the others I would agree they would have a real hard time against some opponents, its just a shame that he likes Hannibal so much.

[pantherboy]

I really can't see how a 400pt army will beat a 600pt one regardless of lists involved. If the army point differential isn't so acute then yes certain armies have distinct advantages over others. In the match-up of Carthos and Romans I prefer the Roman list but have no trouble winning with either. But 600 to 400 the Carthos will surround and destroy the Romans. Simply fielding their Campanian allies helps alleviate some of the difference but you'll see approx. 60 Catho's BG's versus the Roman 40 if fielding only a single Roman commander. The quality of those Cartho's are more than enough to tear the Romans apart. 9 Cavalry, 13 prot. impact foot average, 4 armored impact foot average, 9 superior spear, elephant etc. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate the lopsidedness of 600 vs 400 to you.

Cheers,

Steve

[petergarnett]

I really can't see how a 400pt army will beat a 600pt one regardless of lists involved. If the army point differential isn't so acute then yes certain armies have distinct advantages over others. In the match-up of Carthos and Romans I prefer the Roman list but have no trouble winning with either. But 600 to 400 the Carthos will surround and destroy the Romans. Simply fielding their Campanian allies helps alleviate some of the difference but you'll see approx. 60 Catho's BG's versus the Roman 40 if fielding only a single Roman commander. The quality of those Cartho's are more than enough to tear the Romans apart. 9 Cavalry, 13 prot. impact foot average, 4 armored impact foot average, 9 superior spear, elephant etc. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate the lopsidedness of 600 vs 400 to you.

Cheers,

Steve

Of course if you're commanding the Romans Steve I'd still lose even with all those Carthaginians!

[SRW1962]

I really can't see how a 400pt army will beat a 600pt one regardless of lists involved. If the army point differential isn't so acute then yes certain armies have distinct advantages over others. In the match-up of Carthos and Romans I prefer the Roman list but have no trouble winning with either. But 600 to 400 the Carthos will surround and destroy the Romans. Simply fielding their Campanian allies helps alleviate some of the difference but you'll see approx. 60 Catho's BG's versus the Roman 40 if fielding only a single Roman commander. The quality of those Cartho's are more than enough to tear the Romans apart. 9 Cavalry, 13 prot. impact foot average, 4 armored impact foot average, 9 superior spear, elephant etc. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate the lopsidedness of 600 vs 400 to you.

Cheers,

Steve

Of the two times he actually won both of those involved using an army of 600 pts vs a Roman army of 400 pts and BOTH had very exceptional things happen to turn the battle in his direction caused by the game bugs, one time it was Roman HF anarchy charging at MF in disordering terrain and the other was Roman MF troops anarchy charging out of woods to attack cavalry, both games incidentally I decided (unusually) to defend an area rather than attack. All the other times even with the same odds the Carthaginians lost and most times very badly.

Now I am not a gamey sort of person, I don't care what the best advantage is in any set of wargames rules whether it be on the PC or a TT set, I organise and deploy my troops as best I can to their historical prototype and then try to fight with them in the same way, warts & all. I could be missing a trick or two that would make my army perform better, but I don't care as to me my Roman army should look and play the way I can best envisage it within the constraints of the game. Similarly my friend does likewise and deploys his troops as he thinks Hannibal etc. would have done in any given battle and tries to use them as he see appropriate, again he may be missing a trick or two, but the seeming disparity between the two armies does seem alarming. He deploys two good cavalry wings, he deploys his infantry supported by a reserve line and he keeps his skirmishers in a good line that makes good use of their weapons. He outflanks me and as son as the Romans hit the Carthaginian battle line its all over bar the shouting.

I wish I had saved screenshots from the end of every game, but to be fair I don't, here though are 2 screenshots from the end of two of our latest games, I attacked in both.





Okay I know that we ended up diagonally in both battles, but this was simply the terrain. Please notice all the Campanian allies running off in the first photo.

[Blathergut]

Play a game and post an AAR. Maybe souls here could offer some concrete helpful hints then. Something doesn't sound quite like everything is going right.

[SRW1962]

Thats a good idea! I will try that out, thanks!

[RussProv]

all the lethality of Jedi knights with a blood lust

[SRW1962]

Well, I have played a couple of times as the Carthaginians myself and having lost the first game due to me stupidly expecting my elephant to damage the very disordered Roman cavalry I lost and my wing fell with it, so back to the drawing board I played against them again and this time I beat them. An inspired General with the HF and a supporting line and some cavalry antics and the Romans were crushed. So, the Carthaginians can win against the Romans, BUT and its a big but the Carthaginian African spearmen are still very much up against it and ideally need to be African Veterans which are superior armoured HF spearmen and uphill ideally to help even out the odds, normal African HF spearmen protected and average are simply nowhere near good enough. Scutarii MF are very important and can be used to devastating effect if used right, the cavalry are also very important and can cause mayhem against the Romans.

I still stick to my original idea that African spearmen (infact any HF spearmen) are being robbed of the vital weighting they would get from being in much deeper and larger formations in the tt rules. FOW I feel is essential as although I didn't use it in the games I played as Carthaginians I did play agaisnt the Carthaginians with FOW on and this coupled with some brilliant use of cavalry from a very kind player on the forum gave the Carthaginians their best chance yet against the Romans with me playing as Romans and when I say it was down to the wire as to who won it literally was and the Romans only just pulled it off. In all it made for a fantastic game with the Romans plodding along in their quincunx and the Carthaginians deploying every sneaky trick in the book in a very historical way to destroy the Romans.